A 


(fcatJr/^&tZ^ 


FEW  WORDS  IN  ANSWER 


IC( 


/ 


A 


TO  THE 


6   1937 


ATTACK  MADE  BY  BISHOP  DOANE 


ON 


THREE  BISHOPS  AND  FOUR  LAYMEN, 


IN  HIS 


"  PROTEST,  APPEAL   AND  REPLY 


»; 


TRENTON: 
PRINTED  AT  THE  TRUE  AMERICAN  OFFICE. 

1.852. 


y 


' 


A 


CIRCULAR. 


It  is  not  our  design  to  reply  to  Bishop  Doane  in  regard  to 
all  the  matters  contained  in  his  pamphlet  entitled  "  A  Protest, 
Appeal  and  Reply,"  at  this  time.  We  think,  however,  it  due 
to  ourselves  to  say  a  few  words  only,  for  the  purpose  of  shew- 
ing that  this  reply  is  susceptible  of  being  met  and  overcome  by 
proof,  and  that  we  rely  upon  the  proper  tribunal,  to  which  an 
appeal  has  been  made,  for  a  complete  vindication  of  what  we 
have  said  or  done  in  regard  to  him.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to 
defend  the  three  venerable  and  pious  prelates  whom  he  char- 
acterizes in  his  pamphlet  as  the  "  triumviral  papacy  of 
Virginia,  Maine  and  Ohio,"  and  as  "  a  triumvirate  of 
tyrants,"  from  the  charges  he  makes  against  them  of  "  uncanon- 
ical,  unchristian  and  inhuman  conduct  "  nor  from  the  impu- 
tation that  "the  real  secret  of  their  earnestness'  to  have  the 
"presentment  made  by  the  Convention,  was  the  anxiety  to  save 
"their  own  three  votes  for  use  upon  the  trial"  Against  all 
such  attacks  and  insinuations  those  highly  respected  and 
eminent  divines  are  abundantly  able  to  defend  themselves,  and 
they  no  doubt  will  do  it  in  their  own  way  and  their  own  good 
time.  We  think,  however,  that  the  Bishop's  friends  may 
well  say  to  him  in  relation  to  these  attacks  as  Travers  said  to 
the  Earl  of  Northumberland  : 

t!  This  strange  passion  doth  you  wrong,  my  Lord?'' 

Bishop  Doane  accuses  the  three  Bishops  of  offering  him  the 
alternative  of  "a  presentment"  or  of  complying  with  their 
letter.     See  page  11  of  his  pamphlet.     He  says  : — They  (the 


three  Bishops)  must  have  the  very  investigation  which  they 
advise  and  urge,  "which  they  have  described  and  recom- 
mended," which  they  have  pointed  out,  "  or  else  the  under- 
signed must  be  presented."  Now  the  three  Bishops  have  made 
no  such  alternative ;  the  simple  alternative  of  the  three 
Bishops  is,  that  the  Convention  of  his  own  diocese  must  make 
an  enquiry,  or  that  they  will  make  an  enquiry  whether  a 
presentment  ought  to  be  made. 

As  to  the  mode  adopted  by  the  three  Bishops,  he  complains 
that  they  write  him  a  letter  "  advising  and  urging"  him  to 
call  a  special  Convention  for  the  purpose  of  a  full  investigation 
of  all  that  has  been  or  may  be  laid  to  his  charge."  This  he 
protests  against  as  uncanonical.  The  third  canon  passed  in 
General  Convention  in  1844,  expressly  declares  "  that  the 
presentment  of  a  Bishop  may  be  made  by  three  Bishops."  Now 
if  it  is  canonical  for  three  Bishops  to  make  a  presentment,  is 
it  uncanonical  to  write  a  friendly  private  letter  informing  him 
that  under  a  certain  contingency  they  may  be  compelled  to  do 
it?  There  is  another  charge  against  the  three  Bishops, 
grounded  on  this  point  on  page  11  of  his  pamphlet,  in  these 
words  :  "  And  yet  departing  from  their  places,  transcending 
all  their  rights,  invading  another  diocese  and  dictating  to 
another  Bishop,  they  prescribe  as  the  condition  of  not  present- 
ing, thekourse  he  shall  pursue."  On  this  allegation,  we,  plain 
laymen,  unskilled  in  canonical  lore,  desire  to  make  a  remark 
or  two,  and  the  first  is,  that  the  three  Bishops  have  neither 
prescribed  or  dictated  anything  to  Bishop  Doane  on  condition 
of  their  not  presenting  him.  The  next  is,  that  the  three 
Bishops  show  clearly  by  their  letter,  that  instead  of  interfering 
with  diocesan  rights,  they  sought  to  sustain  them,  by  throwing 
the  matter  into  the  hands  of  the  Diocesan  Convention  of  New 
Jersey,  because  they  consider  that  the  most  tender  way  of 
dealing  with  the  Bishop.  We  have  to  say  also  that  the  course 
adopted  by  the  three  Bshops  was  not  adopted  at  our  instiga- 
tion, or  by  our  advice,  and  that  if  any  one  has  ground  of 
complaint  against  the  three  Bishops  for  desiring  to  throw  the 
matter  before  the  Diocesan  Convention,  it  is  the  laymen.     But 


K 


we  did  not,  nor  do  not,  complain  at  the  course  they  adopted. 
They  were  placed  in  the  sad  alternative  of  either  coming  to 
New  Jersey,  hundreds  of  miles  from  their  respective  dioceses, 
at  an  inclement  season  of  the  year,  neglecting  other  duties  at 
home,  consuming  their  valuable  time  in  running  through  New 
Jersey  to  hunt  up  evidence,  (as  the  Bishops  had  to  do  in  the 
New  York  case,)  or  else  to  submit  the  matter  to  the  Diocesan 
Convention.  We  felt  for  these  noble,  pure-minded  and  inde- 
pendent prelates,  and  we  thought  it  right  that  our  wishes  on 
that  subject  should  yield  entirely  to  their  convenience. 

But  again  in  page  9  of  his  pamphlet,  Bishop  Doane  says, 
"He  will  not  listen  to  their"  (the  three  Bishops)  "advice — no 
special  convention  will  be  called,  by  him,  no  interference  with 
his  equal  and  inalienable  right  as  one  of  the  Bishops  of  Jesus 
Christ,  can  be  suffered  by  him." 

What  is  this  terrible  interference  with  his  equal  and  inalien- 
able rights  which  excites  so  much  of  Bishop  Doane's  ire  ?  It 
is  that  three  Bishops  have  written  to  him  a  kind  and  courteous 
letter  of  advice.  This  Bishop  Doane  treats  "as  an  interference 
with  his  inalienable  rights,  as  an  invasion  of  his  Diocese,"  and 
for  this  "uncanonical,  unchristian,  and  inhuman"  conduct, 
what  does  he  propose  to  do  with  them  ?  We  see  by  his  cir- 
cular, calling  the  special  convention.  He  calls  a  special  con- 
vention to  try  the  three  Bishops  for  their  invasion  of  his  in- 
alienable rights.  Where  does  the  Bishop  find  the  canon  of 
the  Church  which  authorizes  such  a  trial  by  the  convention  of 
New  Jersey  ? 

He  accuses  the  three  venerable  prelates  of  having  received  * 
as  unquestionable  ground  for  the  highest  ecclesiastical  proceed 
ing,  a  document  which  bears  the  name  of  but  four  persons,  and 
which  they  have  evidently  adopted  without  applying  to  it  a 
single  test  as  to  its  truth  or  accuracy.  We  take  leave  to  say 
that  this  accusation  against  the  three  Bishops  is  wholly  un- 
founded. They  could  not  have  done  otherwise,  without  disre- 
garding their  duty  as  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.     The  first  complaint  is,  that  the   document  bears  the 

name  of  but  four  persons.  Our  answer  is,  that  in  a  legal  proceed- 

1  * 


ing  to  found  a  presentment  of  a  Grand  Jury,  but  one  witness  is  re- 
quired; under  the  Mosaic  law,  and  in  ecclesiastical  proceedings, 
but  two  witnesses  are  required  to  convict  a  person  of  a  crime, 
and  we  are  yet  to  learn  that  the  accusation  of  one  respectable 
man  is  not  sufficient  to  ask  inquiry,  which  is  all  the  Bishops 
asked. 

And  again,  the  Bishops  who  presented  the  Bishop  of  New 
York,  acted  on  the  call  of  only  four  or  five  persons  at  most, 
and  they  were  from  other  and  distant  dioceses,  whereas  the 
four  laymen  who  presented  the  memorial  to  the  three  Bishops 
were  satisfactorily  known  as  communicants  of  Churches  near 
Burlington. 

The  second  ground  of  complaint  is,  that  the  three  Bishops 
did  not  apply  a  single  test  as  to  the  truth  or  accuracy  of  the 
document. 

The  grossness  of  the  charge  will  be  manifest,  from  the  fact 
that  the  Bishops  had  before  them  the  two  oaths  of  George  W. 
Doane  attached  to  his  assignme  nt,  together  with  a  list  of  credit- 
ors and  statement  of  his  prope  rty,  a  copy  of  which  had  been 
published,  and  also  the  affidavit  of  Michael  Hays  against  him, 
which  is  not  noticed  by  him,  although  a  copy  of  it  was  sent  to 
Bishop  Doane,  proving  the  truth  of  one  of  the  charges  against 
him  ;  either  one  of  these  affidavits,  in  our  opinion,  is  sufficient  to 
justify  the  action  of  the  three  Bishops. 

Besides,  the  second  section  of  the  thirty-sixth  canon  of  the 
Church  makes  a  public  rumor  a  sufficient  ground  as  against 
a  minister ,  for  the  institution  of  an  inquiry  as  to  the  truth  of 
.such  public  rumor."  Now,  in  this  case  the  three  Bishops  had 
not  only  public  rumor,  but  they  had  no  doubt  seen  the  charges 
which  had  been  published  under  the  name  of  a  respectable  cler- 
gyman in  September,  18o0,  implicating  Bishop  Doane,  and  to 
which  he  had  given  no  reply. 

Besides,  in  Bishop  Onderdonk's  case,  if  we  do  not  mistake, 
the  Bishops  who  made  the  inquiry  into  his  conduct,  and  subse- 
quently presented  him,  acted  on  extensive  rumors,  newspaper 
attacks  circulated   through  the  land  unanswered,   by    editors. 


not  called  before  the  tribunals  of  the  country  as  they  should 
have  been. 

His  next  charge  against  the  three  Bishops,  is  in  page  11  of 
the  pamphlet,  stated  thus :  "  They  reject  beforehand,  the 
M  determination  of  the  convention,  that  enquiry  is  unnecessary.'' 
Again,  in  page  24,  he  says  :  "  The  undersigned  peremptorily 
"  demands  as  his  clear  right,  that  in  his  case,  the  convention 
"  of  his  diocese  has  set  forth  in  the  most  emphatic  way,  its 
"  mind  and  will  as  to  his  presentment,  not  only  for  any  of  the 
Ci  offences  contemplated  by  William  Halsted  in  the  resolution 
"  above  cited,  but  as  to  its  further  entertainment  of  them; 
"  and  that  thus  the  canonical  right  of  any  three  Bishops  to 
"  make  presentment  on  such  charges,  is  perfectly  estopped." 
If  the  Bishop's  knowledge  of  canonical  law  is  not  much  more 
accurate  than  his  knowledge  of  the  common  law,  he  must  be 
very  poor  authority  for  any  one  to  follow. 

The  idea  of  the  three  Bishops  being  estopped  by  the  action 
of  the  New  Jersey  convention,  is  ludicrous  in  the  extreme.  If 
we  were  disposed  to  answer  this  notion  as  a  lawyer,  we  would 
say  first,  "That  Estoppels  are  not  to  be  favored  because  the 
truth  may  be  excluded — second,  that  Estoppels  only  bind  par- 
ties or  privies,  and  the  three  Bishops  were  neither  parties  or 
privies  to  the  resolution  offered  by  William  Halsted,  or  to  the 
action  of  the  convention  upon  it." 

The  principle  of  law  to  which  the  Bishop  evidently  alludes 
(but  which  he  has  so  strangely  misapplied)  is  this,  "That  where 
the  merits  of  a  question  have  been  directly  determined  by  a  court 
of  competent  jurisdiction,  they  cannot  be  tried  over  again  between 
the  same  parties."  We  ask  first,  have  the  merits  of  the  ques- 
tion been  determined  ?  The  merits  of  the  question  were  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  the  rumors  or  charges  sought  to  be  inquired 
into.     These  the  convention  refused  to  inquire  into. 

But  second,  if  the  merits  of  the  question  were  tried,  were 
they  tried  by  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction  ?  What  kind 
of  a  court  is  that  in  which  the  person  accused  of  the  offence, 
presides  and  refuses  to  leave  the  Bench,  when  a  motion  is 
made  requesting  him  so  to  do  ?     What  kind  of  a  trial  is  that 


\n  which  there  is  no  accuser  and  no  witnesses  ?  William  Hal- 
sted,  when  he  offered  the  resolution,  expressly  said,  that  he 
was  not  an  accuser  of  Bishop  Doane.  He  wished  the  investiga- 
tion only  that  he  might  be  put  in  possession  of  facts  by  which 
to  put  down  the  rumors  which  were  in  circulation  against 
Bishop  Doane.  He  repelled  the  charge  of  being  an  accuser, 
but  he  said  in  his  reply,  that  if  the  convention  desired  to  place 
him  in  the  attitude  of  an  accuser  of  Bishop  Doane,  that  if  they 
would  adjourn  for  a  short  time  to  give  him  an  opportunity 
of  obtaining  affidavits,  he  thought  he  could  obtain  sufficient 
proof  to  show  that  the  inquiry  ought  to  be  made.  The  con- 
vention, however,  did  not  think  proper' to  adjourn,  nor  to  re- 
quest William  Halsted  to  assume  the  position  of  an  accuser  of 
Bishop  Doane.  Thirdly,  we  ask,  is  the  question  now  between 
the  same  parties  ?  The  question  then  was  between  William 
Halsted  and  the  Bishop — now  it  is  between  the  three  Bishops 
and  Bishop  Doane.  But  lastly,  are  the  charges  the  same  ? — 
How  does  the  Bishop  make  out  his  assumption  that  the  charges 
are  the  same  which  William  Halsted  contemplated  in  his  reso- 
lutions? As  the  whole  basis  of  his  argument  on  this  point,  rests 
upon  the  identity  of  the  charges  contemplated  in  his  resolution 
and  those  contained  in  the  memorial  to  the  three  Bishops,  it 
was  incumbent  on  Bishop  Doane  to  give  some  proof  of  his  as- 
sertion, or  at  least  not  to  make  the  assumption  unless  he  knew 
it  to  be  true.  We  say  then,  first,  that  Bishop  Doane  has  not 
shown  the  identity  of  the  charges.  Second,  that  William 
Halsted  says  distinctly  and  unequivocally,  that  many  of  the 
charges  contained  in  the  memorial  to  the  three  Bishops,  are 
not  the  same  as  those  contemplated  by  him  when  he  offered  his 
resolution,  and  that  one-half  of  the  charges,  and  two-thirds  of 
the  specifications  have  come  to  this  knowledge  since.  In  regard 
to  the  first  charge  of  borrowing  the  money  of  Mr.  Stubbs  belong- 
ing to  the  society  for  the  promotion  of  christian  knowledge. 

The  first  information  William  Halsted  had  in  regard  to  it 
was  not  until  after  the  third  day  of  July,  1849,  when  it  was 
announced  to  him  by  a  gentleman  in  New  Brunswick.  1 1  is 
certain  then  that  this  charge  was  not  in  the  contemplation  of 


Mr.  Halsted,  when  he  offered  his  resolution.  In  regard  to  the 
third  charge.  Taking  the  sum  of  $7,476  81  of  the  moneys 
belonging  to  the  Episcopal  funds  of  the  Diocese,  without  the 
authority,  knowledge,  or  consent  of  the  convention.  Every 
member  who  was  present  at  the  convention  of  May  1849, 
when  William  Halsted's  resolution  was  passed  upon,  can  bear 
witness  that  it  was  not  until  that  resolution  was  voted  down 
that  the  discovery  was  made,  that  the  Bishop  was  indebted  to 
the  Episcopal  fund  for  means  borrowed  of  Mr.  Germain  without 
their  consent. 

That  was  the  first  information  William  Halsted  had  con- 
cerning it.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  this  charge  was  not  contem- 
plated by  Mr.  Halsted  when  he  offered  his  resolution. 

As  to  charge  fourth,  "Swearing  rashly  and  unadvisedly 
in  regard  to  the  value  of  his  property ;"  and  charge  fifth, 
"swearing  falsely  as  to  the  lists  of  his  creditors,  and  the  amount 
of  the  debts  due  to  them  respectively."  William  Halsted 
declares,  and  is  prepared  to  prove,  that  the  first  information  he 
ever  had  in  regard  to  the  oaths  attached  to  the  assignment  of 
Bishop  Doane,  and  to  the  list  of  his  creditors,  or  the  list  of  his 
property,  or  the  value  thereof,  was  given  to  him  by  a  gentle- 
man in  New  Brunswick,  after  the  3d  day  of  July,  A.  D., 
1849,  when  said  gentleman  exhibited  to  said  William  Halsted, 
a  certified  copy  of  the  assignment  of  Bishop  Doane,  with  affi- 
davits and  lists  of  creditors,  &c,  thereto  attached. 

It  is  certain  then,  that  the  fourth  and  fifth  charges,  as  well 
as  all  the  charges  founded  upon  the  list  of  creditors,  the  inven- 
tory of  property,  and  the  valuation  placed  upon  the  same 
therein,  could  not  have  been  in  the  contemplation  of  William 
Halsted  when  he  offered  his  resolution.  What  kind  of  pretence 
is  there  made  that  the  Convention  in  passing  upon  William 
Halsted's  resolution,  set  forth  "  its  mind  and  will"  in  regard 
to  them  when  they  were  not,  and  could  not  have  been,  in  the 
mind  of  the  mover  of  the  resolution  ? 

William  Halsted  asserts  that  at  the  time  he  offered  his  reso- 
lution of  inquiry,  he  had  in  contemplation  only  six  of  the 
charges  specified  in  the  Bishop's  pamphlet,  and  that  the  other 


10 

thirteen  charges  grew  out  of,  or  are  based  upon,  information 
subsequently  received.  In  this  state  of  facts,  what  becomes  of 
Bishop  Doane's  doctrine  of  estoppel  ?  Let  us  bring  it  to  the 
test  of  common  sense  and  practical  experience.  Suppose  a 
complaint  made  to  a  grand  jury,  that  A  B  has  been  guilty  of 
selling  liquor  on  Sunday,  and  there  should  happen  to  be  a 
majority  of  rum-sellers  and  rum-drinkers  and  their  friends  on 
the  jury,  and  the  grand  jury  should  refuse  to  hear  any  wit- 
nesses or  make  any  inquiry  into  the  complaint,  would  this 
conduct  of  the  grand  jury  prevent  a  subsequent  grand  jury 
inquiring  into  the  same  complaint  ?  Bishop  Doane's  lawyers 
and  counsellors  will  tell  him  it  would  riot.  But  if  it  would 
not,  then  we  ask,  would  it  prevent  an  inquiry  into  the  same 
offence  when  connected  with  the  additional  charges,  that  the 
said  A  B  had  continued  to  sell  liquor  on  the  Sabbath  day  ever 
since  the  first  complaint  was  made  ?  And  if  a  grand  jury  would 
not  be  estopped  from  inquiring  into  the  same  or  similar  matters 
when  the  complaint  was  made  by  the  same  individual,  would 
they  be  authorized  to  reject  it  when  presented  by  three  other 
individuals  .;  The  absurdity  of  this  plea,  set  up  by  Bishop 
Doane  to  prevent  investigation,  is  too  transparent  to  require 
further  remark.  But  the  tenacity  with  which  he  clings  to  it  is 
sufficient  to  satisfy  every  honest  mind  that  investigation  into 
his  conduct  is  the  thing  he  most  dreads,  and  that  the  appre- 
hension of  inquiry  has  so  distracted  his  mind  and  driven  his  judg- 
ment from  its  propriety,  as  to  induce  him  to  set  up  this  refusal 
of  the  Diocesan  Convention  of  New  Jersey  to  inquire,  not  only 
as  a  pardon  for  past,  but  as  "  indulgence"  for  future  offences. 
After  this,  with  what  grace  can  a  charge  of  "  Papacy '  be 
made  by  Bishop  Doane  against  the  three  Bishops  1  Again, 
when  arguments  so  untenable  are  brought  forward  by  a  man 
of  such  powerful  intellect  as  Bishop  Doane,  for  the  purpose  of 
avoiding  inquiry,  it  goes  but  to  confirm  the  opinion  entertained 
by  many,  that  he  must  have  adopted  many  other  expedients  to 
avoid  investigation  before  he  would  have  resorted  to  one  so 
flimsy  as  this,  and  that  the  last  Diocesan  Convention  at  Bur- 
lington was  suddenly  cut  short  and  adjourned  the  first  day,  <it 


11 

his  instigation,  in  order  to  prevent  the  complaint  heing  made 
against  him.  Why  the  sudden  determination  to  dispense  with 
the  evening  service,  after  notice  had  been  given  in  the  morning 
that  the  service  would  be  held  with  a  sermon  and  collection  ? 
And  why  the  Convention  adjourned  leaving  the  Treasurer's 
Accounts  unaudited,  has  never  yet  been  satisfactorily  explained. 
How  far  the  following  extract  from  the  affidavit  of  Michael 
Hays,  annexed  to  the  memorial  sent  to  Bishop  Doane  by  the 
three  Bishops,  may  throw  light  upon  this  sudden  adjournment, 
we  leave  our  candid  readers  to  judge  ; — "  And  this  deponent 
"  further  says,  that  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  on  or  about 
(C  the  day  of  October,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one 

"  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-nine,  entered  into  an 
u  agreement  with  this  deponent,  that  if  he,  this  depo- 
u  nent,  would  compromise  his  liability  on  his  endorsements  for 
"  said  George  W.  Doane,  without  a  contested  suit  at  law,  in 
el  the  best  manner  he  could,  that  he,  the  said  George  W. 
i(  Doane,  would  secure  to  him  the  payment  of  one-half  of  such 
"  sum  of  money,  for  which  said  compromise  was  made,  by 
"  paying  this  deponent  the  sum  of  one  thousand  dollars  a  year, 
"  with  interest,  until  the  said  one-half  should  be  paid,  and  that 
"  the  second  instalment  under  said  agreement,  became  due  in 
u  January  last,  and  that  he  called  upon  the  said  George  W. 
"  Doane,  and  requested  him  to  pay  this  deponent  the  said  sum 
"  of  money,  but  the  said  George  W.  Doane  said  he  could  not 
"  pay  until  May,  but  that  in  May  term  he  should  receive  his 
"  salary  from  the  schools,  and  then  it  should  be  paid,  and  that 
"  this  deponent  should  have  his  money  on  the  tenth  of  May 
"  certain  ;  and  this  deponent  called  on  said  George  W.  Doane 
"  about  the  twentieth  day  of  May  last,  and  the  said  George 
"W.  Doane  told  this  deponent  he  could  not  pay  the  said 
"  money.  Deponent  then  said,  '  Bishop,  this  is  a  disappoint- 
"  ment,'  and  that  if  he  could  not  get  his  money  he  should  first 
"  present  him  to  the  Church,  and  if  he  could  not  get  redress  in 
"  that  way,  he  must  resort  to  the  laws,  and  the  said  George 
"  W.  Doane  then  said  that  if  this  deponent  did  that,  he  would 
"  put   himself  on  his  defence,  and    this  deponent  would  get 


12 


cc 


nothing.  Deponent  replied,  CI  get  nothing  as  it  was.  I 
"  could  do  no  worse."  And  the  said  George  W.  Doane  then 
"  said  that  this  must  be  the  last  intercourse  between  them. 
"  This  deponent  then  left  him,  and  drew  up  a  memorial  to 
"  present  to  the  Episcopal  Convention,  and  gave  it  to  a  member 
M  of  said  Convention  to  present,  and  he  believes  that  the  said 
"  memorial  would  have  been  presented  to  said  Convention  had 
"  not  the  said  Convention,  contrary  to  all  previous  practice, 
"  adjourned  the  first  day  of  its  session." 

There  is  one  remark  which  must  present  itself  to  the  mind 
of  almost  every  man  who  has  attentively  observed  Bishop 
Doane's  conduct  in  the  whole  matter,  and  that  is  this — if  Bish- 
op Doane  is  conscious  of  "his  entire  and  perfect  integrity  and 
innocence,   as  to  all  and  singular  the  charges  made  against 
him,"  and  "challenges  the  world  upon  the  ground  of  perfect 
honesty  of  purpose,"  why  does  he  shrink  from  inquiry  ?     It  is 
not  the  character  of  innocence  to  shrink  from  investigation. — 
It  is  only  "the  wicked  who  flee  when  no  man  pursueth."     "But 
the  righteous  are  as  bold  as  a  lion."     Besides  we  take  it  to  be 
the  duty  of  the  Bishop  to  emulate  the  example  of  the  great 
head  of  the  Chureh— "to  present  the  Church  to  himself,  a  glo- 
rious Church,  not  having  spot  or  wrinkle  or  any  such  thing." 
In  regard  to  the  propriety  of  the  action  of  the  convention 
upon  William  Halsted's  resolution,  and  the  propriety  of  said 
William  Halsted  offering  it,  we  quote  from  a  pamphlet  of  a  Rev. 
Clergyman  published  in  September  1850,  entitled    "a  word 
of  self-defence"  on  page   5  of   said  pamphlet.       The  Rev. 
gentleman  says: — "A gentleman  of  eminence  and  character* 
residing  in  Burlington,  but  not  belonging  to  the  convention, 
declared  to  me  that  he  heard  no  less  than  fifteen  members  say 
the  inquiry  proposed    ought  to  be  instituted.     A  Trustee  of 
the  college,  and  one  of  the  Bishop's  most   faithful  friends, 
whose  friendship  to  him  and  his  institutions  had  been  largely 
tested  by  his  purse,  remarked  to  me  a  short  time  subsequently, 
that  he  had  no  doubt  but  that  a  large  majority  of  the  conven- 


*  This  was  the  lamented  Henry  Mcllvaine,  Esq.,  recently  deceased,  who  prae 
tised  law  in  Philadelphia. 


3 


tion   were  in  mind  thoroughly  satisfied   with  the   wisdom  and 
propriety  of  the  resolution." 

And  as  to  the  propriety  of"  the  memorial  sent  by  the  fonr 
laymen  to  the  three  Bishops,  we  have  been  credibly  informed 
and  believe,  that  it  was  a  subject  of  conversation  among  some 
of  the  Bishops,  who  attended  the  recent  General  Convention 
at  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  when  it  was  remarked  that  it  was  the  du- 
ty of  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  to  institute  an  inquiry  in- 
to the  rumors  and  charges  made  against  Bishop  Doane  5  or  that 
individuals  of  New  Jersey  should  do  their  duty. 

Bishop  Doane  introduces  into  his  pamphlet  the  history  of 
his  embarrassment,  which  has  been  repeatedly  put  before  the 
people  in  one  shape  or  another  for  the  last  iew  years.  But 
we  think  it  will  not  bear  examination,  and  if  it  would,  what 
has  it  to  do  with  the  points  in  controversy  !  The  charges  are 
not  that  Bishop  Doane  is  embarrassed  or  that  his  indebtedness 
is  so  great — this  may  all  happen  to  an  honest  man,  but  the 
substance  of  these  charges  is,  that  he  practiced  deception  and 
fraud  in  the  manner  of  incurring  some  of  his  debts,  and  of  in- 
volving third  persons  in  other  debts.  It  will  not  do  for  one 
man  to  cheat  another,  and  then  plead  in  justification  that  the 
act  was  clone  for  the  sake  of  charity,  or  for  advancing  the 
Lord's  work;  or  in  the  pithy  language  of  an  old  Judge,  it  will 
not  do  "to  steal  the  leather  for  the  purpose  of  making  poor 
men's  shoes." 

Another  issue  raised  by  the  Bishop  for  the  purpose  of  blind- 
ing the  unwary,  is,  that  the  diocese  has  grown  so  much.  This 
is  an  old  piece  of  stereotyped  glorification  that  the  Bishop  puts 
forth  every  little  while  in  his  addresses  and  elsewhere,  and 
repeats  so  often  that  he  really  appears  to  believe  that  the 
whole  increase  of  the  Church  in  New  Jersey  is  owing  to 
his  labors.  But  we  had  supposed  that  "though  Paul  might 
plant  and  Appollos  water,  that  it  was  God  that  gave  the  in- 


crease." 


One  object  oi  Bishop  Doane's  pamphlet  appears  to  be  to 
raise  false  issues  between  himself  and  the  three  Bishops,  and 
between  himself  and  us  four  laymen,  so  that  the  real  matters 

2 


u 

in  issue  may  be  obscured  in  the  smoke  of  the  flames  he  designs 
to  kindle.  Hence  the  bull  he  has  fulmined  against  the  three 
Bishops.  Hence  his  appeal  to  all  the  Episcopal  Bishops  of 
the  United  States  in  particular,  and  of  u  all  the  world "  in 
general.  Hence  he  wishes  to  raise  a  new  issue  between  us 
four  laymen  and  himself.  He  charges  us  with  falsehood, 
malignity  and  misrepresentation,  and  to  give  some  pretext  for 
making  these  denunciations,  he  assumes  that  we  have  made 
charges  against  him,  and  asserted  the  truth  of  those  charges 
on  our  own  knowledge.  NowT  we  deny  both  branches  of  this 
assumption.  The  Bishop  knows  very  well  that  no  layman  can 
present  charges  against  a  Bishop  upon  w^hich  he  can  be  tried 
before  the  Bench  of  Bishops,  and  that  such  charges  can  only 
be  presented  by  the  convention  of  the  Diocese  or  by  three  Bish- 
ops. It  is  apparent,  therefore,  that  we  did  not  present  the  mat- 
ter in  the  document  sent  to  the  three  Bishops,  as  the  charges  on 
which  he  wTas  to  be  tried;  our  only  object  was,  and  could  legit- 
imately be,  to  present  to  the  three  Bishops  such  points  of  inqui- 
ry, and  give  them  such  information  in  a  brief  and  condensed 
form,  as  would  facilitate  their  inquiries,  and  aidt  hem  in  mak- 
ing such  charges  as  they  might  deem  proper  to  present.  And 
if  he  had  carefully  read  our  communication  to  the  three  Bish- 
ops, he  would  have  found  that  we  did  not  assert  that  we  knew 
that  the  matters  set  forth  in  that  communication  Avere  true  ; 
but  that  we  had  made  such  an  investigation  into  them  as  to 
satisfy  us  that  they  ought  to  be  inquired  into.  "In  order  (to 
quote  the  language  of  our  communication)  that  if  false  their 
falsity  may  be  made  manifest,  or  if  true,  that  measures  may  be 
taken  to  relieve  the  Church  from  the  odium  they  indict  upon 
her." 

But  we  cannot  dwell  upon  these  issues  which  are  foreign  to 
the  real  object  we  now  have  in  view,  wrhich  is  to  take  up 
Bishop  Doane's  reply  to  the  charges  which  lie  says  have  been 
made  against  him,  and  to  show  that  the  answers  which  lie 
attempts  to  give  are  either  unsustained  by  facts,  or  are  wholly 
evasive  and  unsatisfactory. 


15 

The  specification  under  the  first  charge  of  obtaining  money 
under  false  representation  or  false  promises,  is  as  follows : 

"He  obtained  money  amounting  to  $1000,  of  the  Rev.  Al- 
fred Stubbs,  Treasurer  of  the  "Society  for  the  promotion  of 
Christian  Knowledge  and  Piety,"  under  a  representation  or 
promise,  that  he  would  give  safe  and  ample  security  for  the 
same  ;  and  he  has  not  returned  the  money  nor  given  security 
therefor." 

In  his  answer  to  this  charge,  he  admits  he  borrowed  the 
money,  but  says  that  Mr.  Stubbs  offered  it  to  him  on  common  se- 
curity. Will  any  one  pretend  that  Bishop  Doane's  bond  was 
common  security  for  the  loan  of  money  held  in  trust  ?  Would 
any  Court  in  the  country  justify  a  Trustee  putting  out  Trust 
money  on  such  security  ?  This  was  no  security,  and  could 
never  have  been  contemplated  by  Mr.  Stubbs  as  such.  We 
have  been  informed  by  creditable  authority,  that  Mr.  Stubbs 
said  that  Bishop  Doane  promised  him  at  the  time  he  got  the 
money,  that  he  should  have  the  best  and  amplest  security,  and 
though  many  months  had  elapsed,  the  security  was  not  given, 
and  that  he  did  not  give  even  a  Bond  with  warrant  of  at- 
torney, until  a  long  time  after  he  had  obtained  the  money,  al- 
though his  answer  is  artfully  worded  so  as  to  convey  that  im- 
pression. 

Bishop  Doane  says,  however,  that  an  arrangement  has  been 
made  to  secure  Mr.  Stubbs  against  loss.  But  he  is  careful 
not  to  tell  us  when  this  arrangement  was  made.  If  the  date 
had  been  given  it  might  have  turned  out  to  be  since  Sept. 
1851,  the  date  of  the  communication  of  the  undersigned  to  the 
three  Bishops,  and  it  might  show  that  Mr.  Stubbs  was  indebt- 
ed to  the  four  Laymen  for  his  security  against  loss,  and  that 
might  have  been  some  little  consolation  for  them  under  the  se- 
vere attack  the  Bishop  is  making  against  them. 

The  second  charge  as  stated  in  the  Bishop's  Pamphlet  is  this: 

"He  induced  individuals  to  endorse  promissory  notes  for  him 
by  false  representations  and  false  promises." 

It  should  be  remarked  before  adverting  to  the  evidence  to 
sustain  the  charge,  that  the  Bishop  in  Page  17  of  his  Pamphlet> 


16 

declares  "his  entire  and  perfect  innocence  as  to  all  and  singular 
the  charges  made  against  him;"  what  credit  is  due  to  these  as- 
sertions, will  appear  in  the  sequel.  The  proof,  however,  of  the 
2d  charge  is  found  in  the  following  extract  from  the  affidavit 
of  Michael  Hays,  which  was  annexed  to  the  document  sent  by 
Hie  three  Bishops  to  Bishop  Doane,  but  which  he  is  very 
careful  not  to  notice  in  his  appeal,  for  it  might  have  interfered 
with  some  of  his  rhetorical  flourishes. 

"And  this  deponent  further  says,  that  of  the  notes  endorsed 
by  said  deponent  for  said  George  W.  Doane,  four  thousand 
dollars  of  them  were  protested,  and  this  deponent  endorsed 
other  notes  to  the  amount  of  four  thousand  dollars,  to  take  up 
the  protested  notes;  and  this  deponent  further  says,  that  after 
he  had  endorsed  said  last  mentioned  notes,  he  applied  to  said 
George  W.  Doane  to  obtain  from  him  the  four  protested  notes, 
for  the  payment  of  which  he  had  endorsed  the  four  last  men- 
tioned notes,  the  said  George  W.  Doane  delivered  to  this 
deponent  two  of  the  said  notes,  and  told  him  that  Mr.  Reuben 
J.  Germain  had  the  other  two;  and  then  this  deponent  applied 
to  the  said  Mr.  Germain  for  said  notes,  and  the  said  Mr. 
Reuben  J.  Germain  replied  that  he  knew  nothing  about  them ; 
and  this  deponent  further  says  that  he  has  been  called  upon  to 
pay  the  said  two  last  mentioned  notes,  for  the  payment  of 
which  the  said  George  W.  Doane  had  obtained  two  other 
endorsements  of  the  same  amount  from  this  deponent,  to  take 
up  said  notes,  and  which  notes  the  said  George  W.  Doane 
informed  this  deponent  had  been  taken  up  and  were  in  the 
hands  of  the  said  Mr.  Reuben  J.  Germain  ;  and  this  deponent 
verily  believes  that  under  pretence  of  getting  this  deponent  to 
endorse  notes  for  the  purpose  of  renewing  notes  which  he  had 
previously  endorsed,  and  which  were  coming  due,  he  must 
have  obtained  from  this  deponent,  endorsements  to  the  amount 
often  thousand  dollars,  which  were  not  applied  to  the  payment 
of  the  old  notes,  but  were  applied  by  said  George  W.  Doane 
to  other  objects,  and  for  other  purposes  than  the  payment  of 
the  notes  they  were  intended  to  renew,  and  by  means  of  which 
misapplication  and  misappropriation  of  said  notes,  the  liability 


17 

of  this  deponent  for  the  said  George  W.  Doane  was  without 
this  deponent's  knowledge  or  consent,  increased  to  an  amount 
often  thousand  dollars,  at  least." 

The  proof  of  the  Specification  under  this  charge  will  be 
found  in  the  Petition  of  Michael  Hays,  addressed  to  the  Epis- 
copal convention  verified  by  his  oath,  which  is  annexed  to  this 
pamphlet  which  was  prepared  by  Michael  Hays  in  his  own  hand 
writing,  and  was  handed  to  one  of  the  undersigned  on  the  first 
day  of  the  sitting  of  the  last  convention  at  Burlington,  with  a 
reque  st  from  the  Petitioner  that  he  would  lay  it  before  the  con- 
vention ;  and  which  request  would  have  been  complied  with,  if 
the  Convention  had  not  suddenly  and  unexpectedly,  and  con- 
trary to  its  usual  practice,  adjourned  on  the  first  day. 

And  we  ask  the  candid  reader  to  contrast  the  following 
language  of  Bishop  Doane  in  reply  to  the  specification  under 
the  second  charge,  viz:  "the  undersigned  never  represented 
himself  to  Michael  Hays  as  solvent  or  able  to  pay  his  debts," 
with  the  language  of  Michael  Hays  as  contained  in  this  peti- 
tion verified  by  his  oath. 

The  charge  3d  as  stated  in  his  pamphlet  is  as  follows  : — 
"Taking  the  sum  of  $7,476  ol  of  the  moneys  belonging  to  the 
Episcopal  funds  of  the  Diocese,  without  the  authority,  knowl- 
edge, or  consent  of  the  convention." 

The  specification  is,  that  "He  induced  the  Rev.  Reuben  J. 
Germain,  the  Treasurer  of  Convention  (who  had  given  no  se- 
curity for  the  faithful  performance  of  his  duty,  and  was  unable 
to  respond  to  the  Convention  for  a  loss  of  said  fund,)  to  sell 
out  good  Stocks,  and  Bonds,  and  Mortgages,  (bearing  an  inter- 
est,) belonging  to  the  Convention,  and  to  loan  the  proceeds  to 
said  Bishop  Doane,  upon  his  own  notes  without  security." 

His  answer  is,  he  did  not  induce  the  Treasurer  to  sell  out 
good  Stock,  Bonds,  and  Mortgages.  "There  never  were  any 
mortgages  belonging  to  the  Episcopal  fund."  We  will  not  aver 
positively  that  there  were  mortgages.  What  we  say  is,  that  at 
the  time  we  sent  our  memorial,  we  believed  that  every  word 
we  uttered  was  perfectly  true.  One  of  the  grounds  of  our  be- 
lief that  there  were  "mortgages,"  will  be  found  in  the  Pamphlet 

9* 


18 

of  the  Rev.  Clergyman  before  alluded  to,  entitled  "A  word  of 
Self-Defence."  On  page  12  he  makes  use  of  this  language  : 
4 "The  fact  was  disclosed  and  undenied,  that  good  securities  in 
bonds  and  mortgages,  and  in  stocks,  had  been  exchanged  for 
the  Bishop's  notes."  We  might  state  other  reasons  for  our  be- 
lief that  there  were  mortgages,  but  it  is  unnecessary.  Sup- 
pose there  were  only  Stocks  and  Bonds  sold,  and  the  proceeds 
of  the  money  lent  to  Bishop  Doane  on  his  notes  without  securi- 
ty. This  is  a  substantial  admission  of  the  charge.  But  he 
says  that  the  Stocks  were  likely  to  grow  worse  and  the  Bonds 
of  doubtful tenure.  Both  of  these  assertions  we  deny,  and  they 
are  without  the  shadow  of  proof.  But  suppose  they  were, 
what  right  had  this  Treasurer  to  sell  them  without  the  author- 
ity of  the  convention,  and  before  he  had  given  any  security  for 
the  faithful  performance  of  his  duty?  But  he  says,  that  the 
Treasurer  "was  for  a  long  time  closely  associated  in  the  busi- 
ness in  which  he  (the  Bishop)  was  engaged,"  and  he  might 
have  added,  that  he  was  a  mere  subordinate  in  one  of  his 
schools.  But  did  this  association  with  Bishop  Doane,  con- 
fer any  right  upon  him  to  loan  the  money  of  the  convention  to 
Bishop  Doane  without  security  ?  Was  it  not  a  breach  of  trust 
on  the  part  of  Mr.  Germain?  He,  is  not  perhaps  much  skilled 
in  business,  and  might  plead  perhaps  ignorance  on  this 
ground  ;  but  this  to  an  honorable  mind  would  only  have  pre- 
sented a  stronger  reason  why  the  money  of  the  Convention 
should  not  have  been  borrowed  of  Mr.  Germain. 

But  he  says  he  was  carrying  on  the  work  of  the  Church. 
This  we  deny ;  but  if  he  was,  does  he  hold  to  the  doctrine 
that  we  may  do  evil  that  good  may  come — that  the  end 
justifies  the  means? 

Again,  he  says,  '*  the  Treasurer  lent  him  his  uninvested 
funds  temporarily  on  his  notes."  What  does  he  mean  by  this  ? 
He  admits  he  borrowed  $7,456  81.  Does  he  mean  to  say  that 
the  whole  of  this  was  uninvested  funds?  If  so,  what  does 
he  mean  b>  saying  that  "stocks  which  were  depreciating,  and 
bonds  of  doubtful  tenure  were  sold*"  Were  not  these  before 


19 

they  were  sold,  invested  funds  ?  But  he  says  the  uninvested 
funds  were  lent  him  temporarily.  What  does  he  mean  by 
temporarily  ?  He  stated  before  the  Convention  at  Burling- 
ton, in  May,  1849,  when  this  indebtedness  was  first  made 
known  to  the  Convention,  and  he  felt  himself  compelled  to 
make  some  apology  about  it — that  the  money  was  not  bor- 
rowed, all  at -once,  but  from  time  to  time  through  a  course 
of  several  years.  If  that  statement  was  true,  what  becomes 
of  the  pretext  that  it  wras  a  temporary  loan  ?  He  says  no 
objection  was  made  to  the  undersigned  or  Treasurer.  Who 
knew7  it  but  Bishop  Doane  and  the  Treasurer  ?  He  says,  "  it 
was  considered  safe,'3  By  whom  ?  Again,  he  says,  it  has 
been  perfectly  secured,  as  a  Committee  of  the  Convention  of 
1850  have  reported.  Suppose  it  to  be  now  secure,  does  that 
change  the  nature  of  the  original  wrong  in  taking  it  ?  But  we  de- 
ny that  it  was  secure  at  the  time  the  Committee  of  the  Conven- 
tion at  Newark  in  1850,  to  which  he  alludes,  reported  it  to 
be  secure.  To  sustain  what  we  say  in  regard  to  the  security, 
we  quote  from  the  pamphlet  of  the  Reverend  gentleman  before 
alluded  to,  entitled  "Word  of  Self-Defence, "  page  9,  wThich  is 
as  follows  :  "  Now  as  to  the  security,  the  Bishop  and  a  friend 
presented  a  bond  conjointly,  obligating  themselves  to  pay  $500 
annually  till  the  debt  is  liquidated.  This,  be  it  observed,  if 
the  $1,000  due  the  society  for  the  promotion  of  christian 
knowledge  and  piety  be  included,  and  for  which  no  other 
security  exists,  will  require,  within  a  fraction  of  seventeen 
years  to  conclude  the  full  return  of  the  funds  due.  The 
collateral  securities  proposed  were  the  assignment  of  a  policy 
of  insurance  on  the  life  of  the  Bishop,  for  $7,500,  and  what 
was  said  to  be  an  extract  from  his  friend's  will,  leaving  the 
amount  requisite  to  cover  the  sum  in  the  event  of  her  death  ; 
the  position  of  her  estate  being  such  that  the  bond  could  be 
availing  only  for  her  lifetime.  But  this  latter  paper  was  in 
no  way  authenticated  ;  there  was  not  even  a  name  attached  to 
it ;  and  if  the  will  itself,  signed  and  sealed,  had  been  tendered, 
Mr.  Ryall  admitted  that  in  law  it  could  be  no  valid  security. 
It  may  be  made  now,  and  in  good  faith,  but  it  may  be  altered 


20 

at  any  day  ;  and  it  is  very  conceivable  that  causes  may  arise 
which  would  be  deemed  a  sufficient  warrant,  both  in  law  and 
morals,  to  make  the  alteration.  There  is  no  bond  of  security 
that  the  annuity  will  be  paid  on  the  life  insurance,  and  a  year's 
neglect  of  this  will  vitiate  the  policy.  And  then  again,  there 
is  no  provision  for  the  payment  of  the  interest,  though  by 
canon  one-half  of  the  interest  is  required  to  be  added  to  the 
principal,  so  the  promised  security,  it  will  be  seen,  is  most 
dubious  and  frail." 

Charge  5th. — Swearing  rashly  and  unadvisedly  as  to  the 
value  of  his  property.  What  excuse  does  he  give  for  swearing 
that  property  was  less  than  one-quarter  of  its  value?  It  is  that  Mr. 
Cannon  and  Mr.  Aertsen  adivsed  him  to  do  so.  He  swears  that 
one  hundred  and  ninety-five  bedsteads  were  only  worth  $87.50. 
That  the  desks,  chairs,  sofa,  engravings,  stands,  etc.,  in  his 
library  worth  but  $70  ?  And  so  of  most  all  the  other  property. 
Does  he  hold  an  oath  so  lightly  that  he  takes  it  as  a  matter  of 
course  because  somebody  advised  him  to  do  so  ? 

Charge  6th. — Swearing  falsely  to  the  list  of  his  creditors  and 
the  amount  of  debts  due  to  them.  He  swore  that  a  certain  list 
was  a  true  and  perfect  list  of  his  creditors,  and  of  the  amount 
severally  due  to  them.  This  list,  however,  did  not  state  that  he 
was  indebted  to  the  Episcopal  Convention  or  to  Mr.  Germain, 
Treasurer  thereof,  for  the  sum  of  $7,476.51,  or  for  any  other 
sum  of  money.  His  excuse  for  leaving  this  debt  out  of  his  list 
is,  that  the  Episcopal  fund  was  not  regarded  an  ordinary  debt, 
and  the  purpose  from  the  first  was  entertained  to  provide  for  it 
distinctly.  What  does  he  mean  by  its  not  being  an  ordinary 
flebt  ?    Does  he  mean  it  was  an  extraordinary  debt  ? 

It  certainly  was  contracted  in  a  very  extraordinary  manner. 
But  was  it  not,  nevertheless,  a  debt  ?  He  swears  he  had  given 
a  true  and  perfect  list  of  his  creditors,  and  the  amount  due  to 
them.  Was  he  not,  as  much,  bound  to  swear  to  the  truth  in 
regard  to  an  extraordinary  debt  as  to  an  ordinary  debt?  But 
perhaps  he  means  by  this  that  he  considered  it  a  preferred, 
debt,  because  he  so  subsequently  added  thathe  meant  to  provide 
for  it  distinctly  ;  and  that  for  this  reason  it  was  not  put  in  thQ 


21 

list  of  debts.  This  is  confirmed  by  his  friend,  J.  C.  Garth- 
waite,  in  his  pamphlet,  dated  Sept.  30th,  1850,  in  which  he 
gives  an  explanation  (doubtless  by  authority  of  the  Bishop) 
of  this  transaction,  in  these  words  :  u  Still  the  Bishop  was 
urgent  for  some  action,  for  he  had  always  considered  this  debt 
from  its  nature,  in  a  peculiar  light,  and  had  kept  it  out  of  his 
schedule  of  indebtedness.'1  It  was  then  designedly  kept  out  of 
the  list  because  it  was  a  debt  he  meant  to  provide  for  dis- 
tinctly. He  says  also  that  these  affidavits  were  made  out 
under  the  advice  of  G.  S.  Gannon,  Esq.,  and  Robert  Aertsen.  Did 
he  tell  these  gentlemen  that  he  was  indebted  to  the  Episcopal 
Convention  in  the  sum  of  $7,476.51,  and  that  he  kept  it  out  of 
the  list  because  he  was  going  to  provide  for  it  distinctly  ?  If 
he  really  wanted  to  take  their  advice  and  throw  the  blame 
upon  them — if  a  false  or  rash  oath  was  taken,  why  did  he  not 
candidly  state  to  them  the  true  state  of  the  case  ?  If  he  had 
told  Mr.  Cannon  that  he  was  indebted  to  the  Episcopal  Con- 
vention and  he  did  not  mean  to  put  that  debt  on  the  list  of  his 
creditors,  he  would  have  been  told  by  that  gentleman :  Sir, 
that  is  a  fraud  upon  the  law  of  New  Jersey  ;  your  assign- 
ment must  be  made  for  the  equal  benefit  of  all  creditors,  and 
any  preference  of  one  creditor  over  another,  would  be  fraudulent 
and  void.  He  is  tasking  credulity  too  far  when  he  asks  us  to 
believe  that  Mr.  Cannon  and  Mr.  Aertsen  advised  him  to  leave 
the  debt  of  the  Episcopal  Convention  out  of  the  list.  Was 
it  not  left  out  from  another  motive,  and  that  to  con- 
ceal it  from  the  Convention.  It  had  been  kept  a  secret 
for  years  from  the  Convention.  If  it  had  been  put  in  his  list, 
the  Convention,  which  was  about  to  assemble  in  a  few  weeks, 
would  become  acquainted  with  the  facts.  He  expected  to  be 
able  to  pay  it  before  the  Convention  should  find  it  out,  and 
therefore  it  was  not  put  in.  It  was  only  discovered  afterwards, 
and  then  it  was  by  accident. 

To  the  specification  under  the    above    charge — viz  :    "Con- 
tracting  debts    to    an    amount    exceeding    $250,000,    when 


22 

his  whole  estate,  real  and  personal,  according  to  his  own  val- 
uation, does  not  amount  to  one-half  that  sum.  His  reply  is, 
that  "of  this  $250,000,  the  real  estate  of  the  undersigned  stood 
for  $100,000. ''  It  would  have  been  more  pertinent  to  the 
inquiry  if  he  could  have  said  it  was  good  for  $100,000. 
Again,  he  says,  the  objection  raised,  lies  against  the  floating 
debt  of  $150,000.  Is  the  specification  limited  to  $150,000  ? 
Not  at  all.  Again  he  assumes  that  the  floating  debt  was  only 
*  150,000,  whereas  it  will  be  seen  by  the  remarks  we  have 
made  upon  his  reply  to  specification  6,  of  charge  5,  that  his 
floating  debts  were  at  the  time  over  $200,000. 

His  answer  to  the  specification  6,  on  page  34  of  his  pam- 
phlet, is  a  mere  evasion ;  nay,  worse,  it  accuses  us  of  false- 
hood, when  the  falsity  lies  at  his  own  door.  The  specification 
is  thus  :  "  He  omits  on  his  list  of  creditors,  thf  name  of  H.  R« 
"  Cleveland,  who,  he  well  knew,  was  at  the  time  a  creditor  in 
"  trust  for  the  sum  of  $15,000."  Now  bear  in  mind  that  the 
gist  of  the  specification  is  that  the  name  of  H.  R.  Cleveland 
was  omitted  "  on  the  list  of  his  creditors."  What  then  is  the 
answer  ?  It  is  that  "  the  indebtedness  to  the  estate  of  H.  R. 
"  Cleveland  in  trust,  is  acknowledged  in  the  schedule  of  real 
"  estate,  which  forms  part  of  the  assignment."  Suppose  for  a 
moment  this  be  true,  is  that  any  reason  for  not  placing  it  in 
his  list  of  creditors?  The  schedule  of  real  and  personal  property 
does  not  purport  to  give  a  list  of  or  the  names  of  the  creditors 
of  George  W.  Doane,  but  only  the  inventory  of  the  real  and  per- 
sonal estate,  and  it  is  verified  by  a  distinct  and  separate  affidavit, 
swearing  that  the  "  above  is  a  true  and  perfect  inventory  of 
"  all  his  real  and  personal  propert)^with  the  value  thereof,  as 
"  near  as  he  could  ascertain."  Tmr\  follows  the  words  "  list 
of  creditors"  and  then  follows  the  names,  139,  with  amounts 
due  each,  opposite  their  respective  names,  and  the  whole 
amount  summed  up  in  figures  and  stated  to  be  $155,593.67. 
Then  follows  an  affidavit  that  the  above  is  a  "true,  full,  and  per- 
fect list  of  his  creditors,  with  the  amounts  severally  due  to 
them,  according  to  the    best  of  his  knowledge."     Is  it    any 


2 


0 


excuse  for  such  an  oath  and  such  a  list  to  say  :  "  The  indebt- 
"  edness  is  acknowledged  in  the  schedule  of  real  estate  ?"  Is 
it  any  answer  to  say  it  has  been  on  record  in  the  public  office  ? 
Does  it  afford  any  shadow  of  pretence  for  the  allegation  he 
makes,  that  we  "  unite  in  declaring  the  debt  is  not  acknow- 
ledged," and  that  we  "make  the  assertion  knowing  it  to  be 
false?"  If  we  were  disposed  to  throw  back  upon  him  the 
charge  of  u  false,  calumnious  and  malignant  representations," 
we  should,  we  think,  find  abundant  reason,  in  the  eyes  of  the 
world,  to  justify  us,  but  we  forbear.  We  simply  deny  that 
we  united  "  in  declaring  the  debt  is  not  acknowledged,"  and 
call  upon  him  to  prove  his  assertion. 

But  he  avers  that  "  the  indebtedness  to  the  estate  of  Mr. 
Cleveland  is  acknowledged  in  the  schedule  of  real  estate." 
What  does  he  mean  by  this  vague  and  indefinite  answer  ?  Does 
he  mean  to  say  that  his  indebtedness  to  H.  R.  Cleveland  in  his 
schedule  or  inventory  of  the  real  estate,  is  acknowledged?  If 
so,  we  take  issue  with  him  and  say  it  is  not  acknowledged, 
either  by  the  language  made  use  of  in  the  inventory,  nor  in 
the  aggregate  amount  of  the  debt  of  his  "  creditors  as  summed 
up  in  the  list  of  his  creditors."  First,then,  let  us  see  what  is  the 
language  of  the  "  inventory  of  the  real  estate  "  in  regard  to 
this  indebtedness.  It  is  thus  :  "  No.  2.  The  homestead  prop- 
"  erty  known  as  Riverside,  fronting  on  the  Delaware  River, 
"  and  bounded  on  the  east  by  St.  Mary's  Hall,  on  the  south  by 
"  Pearl  street,  and  on  the  west  by  Reed  street,  subject  to  a 
"mortgage  to  J.  Deacon  for  $ 5,000;  also,  a  mortgage  to  H. 
"  R.  Cleveland,  in  trust  for  $15,000 ;  also,  to  a  mortgage  to 
"L.  Carter,  for  $10,000,  on  which  about  $4,000  has  been 
"kpaid,  valued  at  $1,00."  Where  is  the  acknowledgment  of 
George  W.  Doane's  indebtedness  in  the  above  extract  ?  He 
says  the  property  is  subject  to  a  mortgage  to  H.  R.  Cleveland. 
He  don't  say  his,  G.  W.  Doane's,  mortgage,  and  for  aught 
that  appears  in  the  statement,  the  property  may  have  been 
mortgaged  by  somebody  else,  and  may  have  been  purchased 
by  Bishop  Doane,  subject  to  the  incumbrance,  so  that  the  debt 


24 

would  not  have  been  a  persona!  debt  of  Bishop  Doane's,  but 
only  a  lien  upon  the  real  estate.     What  foundation  then,  is 

there,  for  his  allegation  that  we  have  made  a  false  assertion/ 
But  in  the  second  place  we  say  that  this  debt  of  H.  R.  Cleve- 
land is  not  in  the  amount  of  his  debts  as  summed  up  on  the 
list  of  his  creditors.  The  aggregate  amount  of  his  debts  as 
summed  up  on  that  list,  is  only  $155,593.67.  If  this  indebt- 
edness to  H.  R.  Cleveland,  which  he  now  says  is  acknowledged 
in  the  schedule  of  real  estate,  and  the  other  indebtedness  to 
other  persons  which  stand  in  the  same  position  in  the  schedule 
of  real  estate  as  that  of  H.  R.  Cleveland,  had  been  included 
in  the  amount  summed  up,  then  the  aggregate  amount  of  his  in- 
debtedness would  have  appeared  to  be  the  sum  of  $263,723. 00; 
add  to  this  the  debt  to  the  Episcopal  fund  $7,476.51,  makes 
$273,199.51,  that  is  $135,703.00  more  than  it  is  stated  to  be  on 
his  list  of  creditois.  Add  $11,500  admitted  on  page  32  of  his 
pamphlet  due  to  Michael  Hays,  over  and  above  the  amount 
in  his  list,  $11,500,  and  $6,600  due  to  J.  Deacon,  also  omitted 
on  page  33  of  his  pamphlet,  and  it  makes  $291,249.51. 

The  same  remarks  which  we  have  made  in  relation  to  the 
omission  to  place  the  name  of  H.  R.  Cleaveland  on  his  list  of 
creditors  and  his  reply  thereto,  are  applicable  to  the  reply  he  has 
given  to  "specification.  9  on  page  35  of  his  pamphlet,  in  re- 
lation to  the  omission  of  the  name  of  I.  B.  Parker,  to  whom  he 
was  indebted  in  the  sum  of  $10,800,  and  in  addition  to  what  we 
said  in  regard  to  specification  6,  we  wish  here  to  notice  a  Lat- 
in maxim  which  he  has  introduced  and  applied  to  us,  viz  :  " Pul- 
sus in  unoy  Falsus  in  omnibus,"  and  he  adds,  "what  an  illustra- 
tion of  it."  We  have  shown  that  all  we  said  in  relationto  specifi- 
cations 6  and  9  is  true  to  the  letter;  but  we  also  say  1  hat  if  we  had 
been  in  error,  and  that  if  two  out  of  ten  specifications  which 
are  produced  as  sustaining  one  general  charge,  should  happen 
to  be  disproved,  it  would  not  follow  that  the  "general  charge- 
was  false."  If  a  man  is  indicted  and  there  are  several  counts 
in  the  indictment,  and  one  of  them  is  not  sustained,  does  it  fol- 
low that  he  is  innocent  of  all  the  rest  ?     But  we  repeal  with 


25 

full  sense  of  the  strength  of  the  allegation  we  make,  that  we 
believe,  that  in  a  court  of  justice  where  compulsory  process 
can  be  obtained  tor  witnesses,  every  "Charge"  against  him,  as 
set  forth  in  Bishop  Doane's  pamphlet,  can  be  sustained. 

Charge  Tenth,  as  stated  in  his  pamphlet,  is  as  follows  : 
"That  he  induced  individuals  to  endorse  notes  for  him  under 
pretence  that  they  were  to  renew  notes  which  had  been  pre- 
viously endorsed  by  the  said  individuals,  and  after  obtaining 
said  notes  for  such  avowed  object,  appropriating  them  to  other 
purposes,  leaving  the  old  notes  they  were  pledged  to  renew, 
unpaid,  and  thus  increasing  the  liabilities  of  the  said  endorser 
without  his  consent." 

Specification  First. — "He  obtained  from  Michael  Hays  in 
the  manner  set  forth  in  the  foregoing  charge,  to  an  amount 
much  larger  than  he  would  have  been  willing  to  endorse  for 
him." 

In  his  reply,  he  denies  the  charge,  and  gives  reasons  for  so 
doing,  which  are  wholly  unsatisfactory,  and  do  not,  in  our 
opinion,  in  any  way  sustain  his  denial.  He  then  says  :  "  The 
falsehood  is  transparent."  Now  the  oath  of  Michael  Hays,  a 
copy  of  which  was  attached  to  the  document  forwarded  by 
the  three  Bishops,  fully  sustains  this  charge  and  specification ; 
and  thus  we  have  an  issue  of  veracity  completely  made  up 
between  Col.  Michael  Hays  and  Bishop  Doane,  and  we  have 
no  hesitation  in  saying  that  we  would  rely  upon  Col.  Hays' 
oath  sooner  than  we  would  on  Bishop  Doane's  word  ;  and  we 
do  not  think  there  is  a  man  in  Burlington  acquainted  with  them 
both,  who  would  not  do  the  same. 

Further,  we  have  been  informed,  and  believe  that  Col.  H<tys 
did  not  declare  on  oath  before  the  Grand  Jury  in  August,  1850, 
that  he  had  "no  cause  of  complaint  against  the  undersigned," 
but  that  he  was  sent  for  by  the  Grand  Jury  to  come  before 
them,  and  when  he  did  reluctantly  go  before  them,  he  asked 
them  what  they  had  sent  for  him  for,  "  that  he  had  no  com- 
plaint to  make  to  them  against  Bishop  Doane."  And  the 
reason  why  Col.  Hays  did  not  desire  to  make  a  complaint  to  the 

3 


26 

Grand   Jury,  wo  presume  Col.   Hays  will,  in   duo   time,  fully 
explain. 

Charge  Sixteenth. — Notwithstanding  he  knew  he  was  in- 
solvent,  he  lived  in  a  style  of  sumptuous  extravagance  wholly 
beyond  his  means. 

In  his  reply  to  this  charge,  he  endeavors  to  make  the  impres- 
sion on  the  mind  of  the  reader,  that  he  expended  his  wife';; 
mcome  in  his  earnest  desire  to  carry  on  the  work  of  the  Lord  : 
and  therefore  that  the  above  charge  is  a  "  mean,  calumnious 
and  malignant  falsehood."  Now,  since  he  has  made  such  a 
charge,  which,  if  we  were  to  adopt  his  classic  and  refined 
language,  we  should  call  "  atrocious,"  we.  will  ask  him  if  he 
was  not,  shortly  previous  to  his  assignment,  indebted  to  a  wine 
merchant  in  Philadelphia  upwards  of  $1,000  for  wine  and 
liquor,  &c.  ?  and  is  that  gentleman's  name  put  upon  his  list 
of  creditors  ?  and  if  not,  why  was  it  omitted  ?  Was  it  like 
the  debt  of  the  episcopal  fund — "  Not  regarded  as  an  ordinary 
debt,"  and  therefore  "  to  be  provided  for  distinctly  :" 

We  shall  have  a  great  many  more  questions  to  ask  when 
these  are  answered  ;  but  as  we  expect  the  three  bishops  will 
take  the  matter  in  hand,  we  will  not  forestal  them  in  the  work. 

In  his  reply  to  charge  ten,  on  the  thirtyrninth  page  of  his 
pamphlet,  he  refers  to  the  affidavit  said  to  have  been  made  by 
Deacon  and  Hays  before  the  grand  jury.  We  have  been  credibly 
informed  and  believe  that  they  did  not  make  such  an  oath  as 
the  bishop  represents ;  and  that  the  oath  was  that  they  "  had 
no  complaint  to  make  to  the  grand  jury  against  him  ;"  and  not 
that  they  had  no  complaint  against  him.  This,  it  will  be 
perceived,  is  a  very  material  difference; — doubtless,  the  bishop 
offered  them  very  weighty  reasons  for  not  having  a  complaint 
to  make  to  the  grand  jury. 

Charge  Seventeenth. — "That  for  the  purpose  of  eiabling  his 
agents  to  borrow  money  for  him,  he  represented  to  them  that  he 
was  indebted  to  an  amount  not  exceeding  $70,000."  This 
charge  he  does  not  deny;  but  says,  "The  undersigned  replies 
to  this,  that  the  amount  of  indebtedness  stated  aU^ve  as 
$70,000,  was  rather  an  estimate  than  a  statement." 


27 

We  have  already  shown  m  oiu  remarks  upon  his  reply  to  spe- 
cification 6  in  the  34th  page  of  his  pamphlet,  the  debts^amounted, 
at  the  time  of  his  assignment,  to  $291,299  51,  and  we^have 
reason  to  believe  they  amounted  to  rising  $300,000,  for  we  have 
heard  of  some  debts  that  were  omitted,  and  it  does  not  appear 
that  any  allowance  was  made,  in  his  calculation,  for  interest, 
— so  that  it  may  be  safely  assumed  that  a  few  months  after 
the  time  he  represented  to  his  agents  (to  enable  them1  to  go 
out  and  borrow  money  on  the  faith  of  his  representations,) 
that  he  was  not  indebted  to  an  amount  exceeding  $70,000  ;  he 
was  actually  indebted  to  an  amount  exceeding  $300,000. 

Have  we  not  said  enough  ?  Is  it  necessary  to  take  up 
every  charge  seriatim  and  show  that  his  reply  is,  in  almost 
every  instance  where  he  does  not  admit  the  charge,  an  evasion 
or  misrepresentation  of  the  real  state  of  the  facts  ? 

We  regret  the  necessity  of  this  publication.  The  majority 
of  the  undersigned  are  unskilled  in  controversial  writing  of  any 
kirid,  and  nothing  but  an  imperative  sense  of  duty  could  have 
induced  them  to  have  exposed  themsel  ves  to  such  a  contro- 
versy with  any  one, — much  less,  such  a  distinguished  and 
eloquent  writer  and  controversialist  as  Bishop  Doane.  Never- 
theless, having  been  drawn  into  it,  we  take  courage,  from  the 
reflection  that  "  The  race  is  not  to  the  swift,  nor  the  battle  to 
the  strong."  We  expected  to  be  assailed  with  vituperation 
and  abuse.  We  shall,  however,  go  calmly  and  fearlessly  for- 
ward in  the  discharge  of  our  duty,  and  rely  upon  the  approval 
of  all  dispassionate,  religious  and  moral  men,  when  the  facts  of 
the  case  shall  be  fully  investigated. 

We  sought  not  to  make  public  the  charges  against  Bishop 
Doane.  We  embodied  them  in  a  memorial  to  three  bishops, 
and  sent  them  to  the  three  bishops  for  the  purpose  of  asking 
them  to  investigate — if  they  thought  them  worthy  of  investi- 
gation. They  sent  them  to  Bishop  Doane,  and  Bishop  Doane 
has  published  them.  Their  publicity  is  the  act  of  Bishop  Doane. 
As  he  has  appealed  to  the  public,  not  only  upon  the  truth  of 
the  charges,  but  on  the  truth  of  his  accusations  against  us,  we 
trust  we  shall  be  excused  from,  saying  thus  much  at  present, 


28 

and  shall  leave  further  vindication  of  our  course  to  the  action 
of  that  independent  ecclesiastical  tribunal,  whose  duty  it  is 
to  take  cognizance  of  matters  of  this  nature. 

W.  HALSTED, 
CALEB  PERKINS, 
PETER  V.  COPPUCK, 
UENINGTON  GILL. 

February  2(5,  18o2. 


COPY  OF  THE  MEMORIAL  OF  MICHAEL  HAYS  TO    THE 
DIOCESAN  CONVENTION  OF  NEW  JERSEY. 

i(To  the  Honorable  the  members  of  the  convention  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  state  of  New  Jersey, 
at  the  city  of  Burlington  assembled : 

"  The    petition    of    the    subscriber    respectfully    sheweth, 
That  your  petitioner  having  suffered  great  wrong  and  losses, 
to  a  very  great  extent,  by  endorsing  and  loaning  money  to  the 
Rev.  George  W.   Doane,  he  (the  said  Doane)  representing  to 
your  petitioner,  at  the  different  times  of  procuring  said  loans 
and  endorsements,  that  your  petitioner  was  perfectly  safe  in  so 
doing,  and  that  he  should  suffer  no  loss  thereby  ;  yet,  at  the 
same  time,  the  said  G.  W.  Doane  well  knowing  that  he  (the 
said  Doane)  was,  at  that  time,  insolvent  and  unable  to  pay  his 
indebtedness;    but   contriving   and    wrongfully    and    unjustly 
intending  to  injure  and   bring   to   great  loss  your   petitioner  ; 
and  he   (the  said  Doane)  did,  at  divers  times,  wrongfully  re- 
present to  your  petitioner  his  ability  to  pay  his  indebtedness, 
thereby  wrongfully  and  unjustly  through  such  false  representa- 
tions, induce  your  petitioner  to  loan  money,  and  also  to  endorse 
for  the  said  G.  W.  Doane  to  a  large  amount,  and  which  said 
large  amount, — to  wit,  the  amount  of  twenty-three  thousand 
dollars,  your  petitioner  has  been  compelled  to  pay  ;  and  your 


29 

petitioner  further  represents,  that  the  said  G.  W.  Doane  di" 
stipulate  that  if  your  petitioner  would  pay  the  aforesaid  amount 
of  money  without  any  contested  suit  at  law,  then  lie  (the  said 
G.  W.  Doane)  would,  upon  such  settlement,  remunerate  your 
petitioner  to  the  amount  herein  set  forth  and  made  known  to 
your  honorable  body,  you  will  take  such  action  on  the  same 
as  to  you  shall  seem  proper  and  right,  and  your  petitioner,  as 
in  duty  bound,  will  ever  pray. 

■■  MICHAEL  HAYS. 

"  State  of  New  Jersey,   / 
.Burlington  county.  j 

"  Michael  Hays,  the  petitioner 
above-named,  being  duly  sworn  according  to  law,  doth  depose 
and  say  that  the  matter  and  things  set  forth  in  the  foregoing 
petition  are  true  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge. 

"  MICHAEL  HAYS. 

"Sworn  and  subscribed  this  2oth  day  of  May,  1851,  ) 
before  me,  one  of  the  justices  of  the  peace  of  ? 
said  county.  ) 

"  Samuel  W.  Earl." 


^ 


•«-•* 


/ 


